Unusual house construction?

paulpud · 15 May 2018 at 10:53AM

As an electrician I've worked on many different types of buildings over the years but I've recently started renovating a house and it seems to have been built in an unusual way.

It's a 2 bedroom semi built in the early 1920s, red bricks to the ground floor and a roughcast render finish to the 1st floor. Whilst the external walls to the ground floor have a cavity with an inner leaf made of heavy, 3 inch thick concrete blocks it appears that the 1st floor external walls have no cavity and have been laid with solid concrete blocks about 8 inches thick. There is also a hard render on inside of these upstairs walls, up to about 18 inches above the floor boards, which I can only assume was because of some kind of historic damp issue. All the internal walls have been built using heavy, 2 inch thick concrete blocks including one that was sat on top of the floorboards.

Has anyone else encountered this kind of construction?

FreeBear · 15 May 2018 at 11:35AM

I have a semi built in 1928/9 that has brick cavity walls on the ground floor and solid double thickness solid brick on the upper floor. The top half is rendered and pebble-dashed, and the lower finished with a soft local facing brick.

Internally, partition walls on the ground floor are single skin brick built off concrete foundations below the suspended wooden floor. Upstairs, one single skin brick wall divides the house in half - This is a continuation of the partition wall downstairs and provides support for the roof structure. The remaining upstairs walls are of a wooden stud construction.

All walls and ceilings are finished in a lime plaster that appears to be mixed from sharp sand and slapped on. Although the finish is reasonably smooth, it is far from flat and even.

In all, a fairly typical construction for many houses built between the war years.

Furts · 15 May 2018 at 1:42PM

Coming far more up to date than your 1920s house, it was common in the the 1980- 90s to build like this. Cavity walls up to floor joists then solid walls with blocks laid flat on up. Quick, simple, cheap and de-skilled to build. Now it is insulation blocks in lieu of the 1920s blocks but the build is no different. Still could be if it passes the U Values and I see no reason why it should not.

paulpud · 16 May 2018 at 4:06PM

Thanks guys, not so unusual then but I'd never encountered it before.

I was surprised at the extensive use of the concrete blocks for the period, and I dread to think of the weight of the one sitting on the floorboards, which I've now taken down ready to be replaced with a stud wall.

I'm stripping the entire place of plaster (horrible job) and the exposed blockwork is in need of a lot of re-pointing as the mortar in the vertical courses is just falling away.

Furts · 16 May 2018 at 4:46PM

paulpud wrote: »

Thanks guys, not so unusual then but I'd never encountered it before.

I was surprised at the extensive use of the concrete blocks for the period, and I dread to think of the weight of the one sitting on the floorboards, which I've now taken down ready to be replaced with a stud wall.

I'm stripping the entire place of plaster (horrible job) and the exposed blockwork is in need of a lot of re-pointing as the mortar in the vertical courses is just falling away.

Building was unregulated back then and there was loads of dodgy building. More likely if a private/spec build. Check your removed wall was not load bearing, or stiffening, or giving lateral support. I know it was built off floor boards, but stranger things have happened.

FreeBear · 16 May 2018 at 6:25PM

Furts wrote: »

Building was unregulated back then and there was loads of dodgy building.

Going to have to disagree on this - Building regulations and enforcement was very much a regional affair in those days. There were some attempts to introduce national standards, but it would be another 30 years before anything like what we have today was enshrined in legislation.

Back "in the day", builders would have used what ever was locally available and cheap (that hasn't really changed). For example, a lot of houses in the south west used locally available aggregates in the concrete - Unfortunately, this was dug out of spoil heaps from the local mines and resulted in very poor concrete. Look up "Mundic block" for some of the issues surrounding this stuff.

Furts · 16 May 2018 at 8:39PM

FreeBear wrote: »

Going to have to disagree on this - Building regulations and enforcement was very much a regional affair in those days. There were some attempts to introduce national standards, but it would be another 30 years before anything like what we have today was enshrined in legislation.

Back "in the day", builders would have used what ever was locally available and cheap (that hasn't really changed). For example, a lot of houses in the south west used locally available aggregates in the concrete - Unfortunately, this was dug out of spoil heaps from the local mines and resulted in very poor concrete. Look up "Mundic block" for some of the issues surrounding this stuff.

Council house building was a new concept after WW1. OP's was right at the start of this era. If an ex-council then it is likely to be good but private homes were a different scenario. Some were good others not - everything was different then be it land availability, developers, or building companies. Which meant it was easy to make a quick buck and not bother about quality. This lead to national newspaper articles about jerry building. Eventually matters came to ahead and the NHBC was formed in 1936. Public Heath Act around the same time, but Planning was behind this - it did not come in because the war intervened.

People have rose tinted spectacles when they look at the 1920-30s homes. They think quality existed but cracking render, shallow foundations, no lintels and much more can go with the territory here.

FreeBear · 16 May 2018 at 9:39PM

Furts wrote: »

People have rose tinted spectacles when they look at the 1920-30s homes. They think quality existed but cracking render, shallow foundations, no lintels and much more can go with the territory here.

Quite agree with you there. As I go through my home doing assorted repairs, refurbishment, and redecorating, I'm finding plenty of bodge jobs and sloppy workmanship. Many of them date to when the house was built, and a few more from an extension added in 1976.

Furts · 17 May 2018 at 7:35AM

FreeBear wrote: »

Quite agree with you there. As I go through my home doing assorted repairs, refurbishment, and redecorating, I'm finding plenty of bodge jobs and sloppy workmanship. Many of them date to when the house was built, and a few more from an extension added in 1976.

Unfortunately this is a reality check for some consumers. Regulations exist, and more so since your 1970s extension. But that does not mean the workmanship, design, or materials are any better because of this. Then consider the flip side - in the 1920s, and long before, this country could build very good houses when there was almost no regulations.

Bluntly Regulations do not equal quality. Yet politicians keep trying to push in that direction.

VfM4meplse · 17 May 2018 at 9:15AM

Furts wrote: »

People have rose tinted spectacles when they look at the 1920-30s homes. They think quality existed but cracking render, shallow foundations, no lintels and much more can go with the territory here.

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I thought mine was a good strong structure but maybe not

Furts · 17 May 2018 at 12:48PM

VfM4meplse wrote: »

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I thought mine was a good strong structure but maybe not

I have every confidence that yours is fine.

Unusual house construction?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free